OGSB 2007

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer with asthma triggered by cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer took some steps, it failed to take all reasonable steps to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, such as designating smoking areas away from building entrances.

The Employer was directed to compensate the grievor for monetary losses attributable to exposures on the grounds and to meet with the Union to discuss further accommodation.

However, the Board found the grievor was not entitled to be paid for a period he unilaterally absented himself from work.

During a grievance arbitration concerning alleged discrimination and differential treatment, the Employer brought a motion to restrict the Union from arguing that the differential treatment also constituted a breach of the management rights clause (Article 2) of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued this was an inappropriate expansion of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the wording of the grievance was sufficiently broad to encompass arguments under Article 2 and did not restrict the complaint solely to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under Article 3.

The union filed grievances objecting to the employer's use of police officers to escort inmates outside the correctional facility, alleging a violation of a 2001 Memorandum of Settlement (MOS).

The MOS restricted the use of police for community escorts, requiring the employer to first utilize classified correctional officers.

The central issue was whether the employer had to offer overtime to correctional officers who had not submitted availability sheets before resorting to police.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, following the termination of the local overtime agreement, the MOS obligated the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the availability of all classified correctional officers, including those not on the overtime list, before using police as escorts.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unjustly denied the grievor a temporary assignment of less than six months duration, arguing she should have been selected based on seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excluded temporary assignments of less than six months from posting provisions.

The employer had unfettered discretion in making such assignments, and absent any allegations of bad faith or discrimination, there was no basis to intervene.

The grievor alleged she was improperly denied a position as a Collection Officer.

She had since attained the position, so the grievance was limited to damages for the interim period.

The grievor scored 37.5% on the competition tests, failing to meet the 50% threshold and scoring 15% lower than the lowest successful candidate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or inappropriate testing, and concluding the grievor was not relatively equal to the successful candidates.

The Union requested that the Board order the Employer to comply with a disclosure request regarding an OPP investigation, and that the Board vacate a previous consent order restricting the grievor's use of the Employer's disclosure document.

The Employer confirmed full disclosure had been given regarding the OPP investigation, which the Union accepted.

The Board declined to vacate the restricted use order, finding that the grievor and Union had an opportunity to consider the issue before agreeing to it, and that the order did not preclude the grievor from discussing the facts with family and friends.

The union sought an order directing the production of certain documents in a grievance arbitration.

The employer agreed the documents were relevant but raised concerns about their sensitive nature and requested safeguards regarding their use and distribution.

The union did not object to the safeguards.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the documents to union counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that only union counsel remain in possession of the documents and that they only be viewed by counsel, the instructing client, and the grievor.

In a grievance regarding an unsuccessful job application, the union sought disclosure of certain documents.

The employer raised concerns that the documents contained confidential personal information of other employees.

The Vice-Chair confirmed an oral ruling directing the employer to disclose the documents, subject to a strict condition that the union and its counsel maintain utmost confidentiality and use the information solely for the purposes of the proceeding.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Correctional Officers who were rehired after a separation of more than six months and placed at the first step of the CO2 salary range.

The Union alleged that other similarly situated rehired employees were placed at higher steps, and that the Employer exercised its discretion unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable because they did not allege a violation of the collective agreement and relied on an external rehire policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the placement of the grievors within the salary range of the CO2 classification, which is a matter of administering the pay provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the grievances on their merits.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the placement of Workwell Evaluators on a new salary grid following a job reclassification.

The position was moved up one salary grade, from an eight-step grid to a four-step grid.

The Employer placed employees on the new grid at the first step that provided a wage increase, arguing that the collective agreement's requirement to adjust salaries to the 'same step' could not be applied because the new grid had fewer steps.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that Salary Rule 6 requires the Employer to use each employee's job start date and apply the step time frames of the new salary grade to determine their placement, ensuring equal treatment and reflecting the value of the reclassified job.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to offer employment to two former employees of a sub-contractor following the transfer of operations of the Central North Correctional Centre to the Ontario Public Service.

The Employer had denied the offers based on the employees' prior disciplinary records, which included warnings for sleeping on the job and a suspension for reporting to work after consuming alcohol.

The arbitrator found that the disciplinary records were either not significant enough or too stale-dated to justify denying the job offers under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement.

The Employer was ordered to provide job offers to both employees.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor a promotion to a Tax Auditor 4 position.

The employer had required candidates to achieve a 55% threshold on a written test.

The grievor initially scored 55.25% when marked by an outside consultant, but her score was reduced to 49.25% upon remarking by an internal transition team.

The arbitrator found that the inconsistent test results undermined their reliability and that it was inappropriate to disqualify the grievor based solely on the test results without considering her past record and experience.

The matter was remitted to the parties to determine an appropriate solution.

In a grievance concerning a job posting for a Product Consultant position, the union requested an order for particulars and production of documents from the employer.

The union alleged the employer was estopped from denying casual employees rights under the collective agreement due to past practice.

The employer opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition and overly broad.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's request in part, ordering the employer to produce specific documents and particulars relating to the alleged change in practice, finding the information arguably relevant and not a mere fishing expedition.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's unilateral termination of a pilot project that paid a mentoring bonus to land ambulance dispatchers.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from discontinuing the practice for the life of the current collective agreement because it failed to give notice during collective bargaining of its intention to end the bonus.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's initial implementation of the bonus as a 'pilot project' subject to evaluation reserved its right to discontinue it.

Furthermore, the parties' prior agreement to negotiate monetary outcomes of class standard reviews meant the employer's silence during bargaining could not reasonably be construed as a representation that the extra compensation would continue.

The union filed grievances claiming that casual employees should be granted seasonal status based on hours worked prior to the coming into effect of the new collective agreement, applying the new formula.

The employer argued that the new formula only applied to hours worked after the ratification date, resetting the hours bank to zero.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the new formula did not apply retroactively, but hours worked under the old formula were not wiped out.

Employees could still achieve seasonal status if they met the requirements of the old formula, even if some weeks were worked after the new agreement came into effect.

The grievances were dismissed.

During a hearing, the parties discussed the exchange of information necessary to proceed with the merits of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with copies of specific unclassified contracts, preceding contracts for two individuals, and documents relating to the assignment of duties and a job offer.

The documents were ordered to be provided for the union representative's exclusive use and returned at the conclusion of the hearing due to confidentiality concerns.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously issued a bottom-line decision substituting the grievor's discharge with a three-month suspension and directing his reinstatement.

The parties entered into an interim return to work agreement but could not agree on the grievor's permanent assignment location.

Following representations from counsel, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to assign the grievor to the Mimico Correctional Centre as a classified Correctional Officer 2 upon completion of his basic training.

Three provincial bailiffs grieved their discipline (two 20-day suspensions and one discharge) following an incident where an inmate escaped from their transport bus.

The Union argued the discipline was void due to double jeopardy and delay, but conceded some culpable conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a 'bottom line' decision, rejecting the double jeopardy and delay arguments.

The Board substituted the discharge with a three-month suspension, reduced one 20-day suspension to 10 days, and upheld the other 20-day suspension.

The Union requested disclosure of certain previously requested documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an oral ruling ordering the disclosure of the documents, subject to a proviso that the material disclosed would not be utilized by the Union or its representatives for any purpose other than for this matter.

The Employer requested that the order be reduced to writing, which the Board provided in this decision.

The government of Ontario took over the operations of the Central North Correctional Centre from a private contractor.

The parties negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement to facilitate the transition and hiring of the contractor's employees.

The union grieved the employer's hiring decisions, arguing the Memorandum fettered the employer's normal broad discretion to hire.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific screening criteria in the Memorandum of Agreement restricted the employer's usual management rights regarding hiring, as finding otherwise would render the negotiated provisions meaningless.